23 April 2007

The attached article jerked me out of my self-important, self-aggrandizing daze and jerked its columns at the patches of dead grass and rabid rabbits that lurk in the leafy nirvana that is Web 2.0. The Palace is a nice place to be. Here I am safe. From here I can rain down Righteous Justice on the dictators, the lawbreakers, the wrongdoers and the ne'erdowells. Your God is in his/her/their celestial house and all is right in the Web.

Or not. Enough metaphor.

The author cites quotes from people of whom I have never heard (but who are promoted as experts and sages) who encourage me to believe their assertion that blogging is "all about digital narcissism, shameless self-promotion", or that blogs "do not add to the available stock of commentary; they are purely parasitic on the stories and opinions that traditional media provide.

Of these two quotes, I can agree with the first in the case of the virtual bike sheds that are the social networking sites, but the second strikes me as the pot calling the kettle a negro. We are all parasitic on society. Papers, TV and the internet are merely transmission mechanisms for stories and opinions created by people. Traditional news outlets only create stories when the world fails to generate its share. This differs from net-based content only in the medium and manner in which it is delivered and that it has been around a bit longer.

Which brings me to the next bone of contention; presentation. I agree that the social networking sites are primarily the domain of the teenager; indeed, the parallels bring back such memories as to make me avoid them completely. The quote;"We are creating a world in which everybody can talk - or , more commonly, shout - about themselves to everybody else."

Put like that, it sounds like a bad thing. But while the newspapers and evening news are geared towards adults, social networking sites are not. Therefore, one cannot compare one by the standards of the other. In this connected world where every individual has the crushing fact of its insignificance thrust down its throat every day, these sites provide a beacon of hope, the chance to have your say without fear of let or hinderance.

The very word "individual" is losing its meaning. Those choices that make us individuals are no longer ours to make. This "round hole" society we have created generates row upon row of uniformly square pegs. Given that fact, are we so surprised that people feel the need to shout "I AM NOT A NUMBER!" to anyone who will listen?

The article also suggests that blogs are generally1 "claustrophobic environment(s), appealing chiefly2 to a certain kind of agressive, point-scoring male and utterly off-putting to everyone else". The author of this comment believes signing your real name to your online contributions is the only way to ensure that people are more civil to each other. I can kinda see the point, but it's no magic bullet and even if it were, you can't make someone use their real name. And those who do will wind up getting death threats from those who do not.

Abusive content cannot be blamed on blogs, nor is abusive online content a new thing. People have been flaming each other in forums and on bulletin boards even before Sir Tim added the FORM tag to HTML 2.0 back in 1995. And it's no good the newspapers getting all superior; the papers are never short of vitriol. The only difference is that the words generally have more syllables, the better to confuse the target and reduce the possibility of litigation.

It's a case of "It's my ball and I'm taking it home". The internet has given those of us who scrawl our words upon it the power to commit our thoughts to immortality, a power which, until recently, was the plaything of the MSM. Now we all have to share the ball, the MSM are throwing their toys out of the pram. We all have to learn to play nice and share.

The Web is in its infancy, its ability to inform opinion and shape policy still very much underdeveloped. Like all kids, it needs to have its boundaries set, its transgressions punished and its good deeds rewarded. I don't feel that the MSM is the body to do that, in the same way that I wouldn't want a sullen older brother, jealous of the shift of attention to its pudgy, drooling little brother, to decide what's best for it.

Do we need regulating? Sooner or later the web will grow, lose the puppy fat, grow some teeth and learn how to articulate itself properly. Until that time, if the Web 2.0 decides to poo itself and throw up on the rug once in a while, we should let it.

Blogging does not destroy civilization. If something as basic as freedom of speech can destroy civilization, then it deserves to die. Asking us to gag ourselves to save civilization is destined for failure. If you want us to save the world, you have to be sure we like it the way it is.

1 Always a dangerous word; you will always piss off the few to placate the many.2 "generally" with fewer medals.

15 April 2007

There's an article in today's 'The Sunday Times' entitled "Staring at Muslims ' is a racist act'". It goes on to state that "pupils and teachers in Scottish schools have been banned from staring at Muslims in case it causes offence" and "Staring or looking is a form of discrimination as it makes the other person feel uncomfortable or as though they are not normal".

Being a Scot, I'm dismayed that the authorities have taken this approach. It appears that the Muslim Association of Britain agrees, saying that the officials have "gone too far".

Firstly, it's evident that "the Authorities" (who obviously are only an authority on 'Sticking Red Tape up Their Own Arse') didn't bother to consult with the people whom this ban is intended to protect. And guess what? The Muslims think it's a piss idea, and here's why.

The human eye is attracted to movement. It's one of those things we have retained from our past, unlike a tail or picking our nose and eating it (well, most of us). Therefore, if your eye detects movement, you automatically look at the thing that is moving. Unfortunately for you, if that 'thing' is a Muslim person, you are now a racist. You have caused offence (so they say). You may as well have cornered them and pointed and laughed.

Now, the authorities at this point will go "Ah well, now, you see, you're missing the point. What this ban will do is...." and we'll interrupt (we racists have no time for social niceties) and go "ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, YOU PC TOSSER!".

Now, there is obviously a difference between a glance and a stare. But where do you draw the line? How long do you have to be focussed on someone before it becomes a stare? Am I allowed to blink? The article doesn't state how much bird you'll do for letting your heathen eyes pass over a Muslim, but I can't imagine the police are going to be nicking people for Looking with Intent to Stare, or Possession of a Racist Eyeball, or Grevious Ocular Damage.

If the authorities have a sense of humour failure about this, logically it could mean that no-one in Scotland will ever look at a Muslim again. Not sure how preventing basic human interaction fosters better understanding between races, but I'm sure they know what they're doing.

This is another case of politically correct over-reaction making a bad situation worse. This is just another glitch on the road towards the complete integration of the races. Racial integration is a recent invention; well, the 'term' is new. Back in the Good Old Days, "racial integration" meant joining the army or navy, sailing off somewhere hot, killing all the darkies, stealing their country and getting home in time for tea and medals.

We haven't been 'cross-pollinating' for that long, geologically speaking, but it won't be long before we're all 'brown'. The lines between races are growing less distinct, which is great. The problem this stupid ban is failing to address is based on religion and our collective inability that not everyone subscribes to our person view of the universe.

There are already perfectly good laws to cover this sort of thing. I saw a very good address given by Bono at some high-faluting breakfast thingy in which he talks about there being the laws of Man and then higher laws, talking of course about God (he also said that Religion gets in the way of God, which was a good way to put it).

Basically, this is old ground for me, but it still gets my goat. Poor goat. Never gets any peace.